Billboard Owners, Orlando Warring Over Numbers Game

July 6, 1987|By Mildred A. Williams of The Sentinel Staff

The battle to reduce the number of billboards in Orlando is heating up again, with city officials claiming new billboards are being erected and the outdoor advertising industry contending the total number of billboards has decreased.

Orlando officials want to reconsider the billboard issue because they say the billboard regulations they enacted to prevent proliferation almost two years ago are not working. The billboard ordinance also has resulted in the city being sued by several billboard companies.

''We anticipated very few, if any, new billboards'' after the ordinance took effect in August 1985, said Rick Bernhardt, director of planning and development. But, Bernhardt said, the number of billboard construction permits being applied for has increased every year since.

The city council agreed last week to consider an 18-month moratorium on new billboards while city staffers study the legal and practical implications of the ordinance and a ban on new billboards. A public hearing to discuss the interim moratorium is set for 5 p.m. Aug. 31.

Several billboard company owners say any kind of moratorium is unnecessary because there is no proliferation of billboards. They say the existing ordinance is so strict that it limits the places where billboards can go.

''I have no doubt that there are fewer billboards today than there were in August 1985,'' said Andy Anderson, president of Peterson Outdoor Advertising, the largest billboard company in Orlando. ''It's just typical that we're being confronted once again with the mayor's personal vendetta against billboards.'' The current billboard code grew out of a task force of citizens and representatives of the billboard and tourism industries organized by Mayor Bill Frederick.

Existing billboards were to be in compliance with the law by January 1986 or they would be removed.

But instead of complying with the law, several billboard owners and the companies that rent space from them sued the city in January 1986 claiming the size and spacing regulations were unconstitutional. Peterson sued, claiming that the company should be compensated for any sign the city removed.

''The signs were built legally and with a permit,'' Anderson said. ''We're just saying if you want to take them down, then pay us for them.''

All of the lawsuits are pending, preventing the city from enforcing the ordinance on billboards and companies involved in the lawsuits.

In addition, Bernhardt said, the number of permits applied for and approved since the billboard ordinance took effect has increased. In 1985, there was only one application, compared to seven in 1986 and 12 in 1987.

Of the 20 billboard permits applied for, 15 were approved, three were denied and two are pending.

Anderson discounts the significance of the number of billboard permits granted.

''If we were talking about hundreds, that would be a different story,'' Anderson said. ''But we're talking about a nominal number.''

Anderson said he is certain the number of billboards has decreased, saying many have been removed because of new development and destruction. He said his company lost 13 signs.

Ralph Kaschai, owner of Cashi Signs, agreed, pointing out that his company has lost 7 of its 13 billboards in Orlando.

''We've lost more billboards in a year than they have gained in the last five years,'' Kaschai said.

Kaschai said his company has not applied for any new billboards because ''it's tough to get a location'' under the ordinance. ''It's really slowed everything down to a screeching whoa.''

Bernhardt said the city has no way to keep track of the number of billboards being removed because no permit is needed to take a sign down.

He said city staffers will compile figures on the number of billboards in the city during the study period. They will also consider banning new billboards, a move several cities around the country have taken recently, as well as other changes to the ordinance.

Anderson said even though he is not completely satisfied with the ordinance, he opposes any changes.

''They have not even given the ordinance a chance to work,'' Anderson said.